Related documents
Loading PDF...
This document is 386.0 KB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
12 January 2007 this version
05 January 2007
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 16
Judgment
16|
Personal representative validly represented respondents; CMA's oral applications, substituted claims and award for unfair termination upheld.
Labour — Representation at CMA — Personal representative recognised by Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No.8 of 2006; Procedure — Rule 29(11) permits CMA discretion to determine applications orally; Amendment/substitution of CMA Form No.1 permitted under Rules; Remedies — Arbitrator may grant accrued leave/back benefits upon finding unfair termination; Burden — employer must prove valid reason and fair procedure for termination (s.37 ELRA).
|
|
Court dismissed revision; termination procedurally unfair for denying the respondent a hearing, CMA award upheld.
* Labour law – unfair termination – procedural fairness – right to be heard (audi alteram partem) under Rule 13 Code of Good Practice; failure to produce primary/original evidence; revision of CMA award; upholding CMA award.
|
|
Disciplinary dismissal challenge dismissed; court found fair hearing and Regulation 62(3) bars reversal for mere procedural irregularities.
* Labour law – Judicial review of disciplinary dismissal – Procedural fairness and right to be heard under Public Service Regulations
* Public Service Regulations – Delay in conducting inquiry; additional charges; service of documents; composition of inquiry committee; delegation of decision-making
* Regulation 62(3) – Irregularities in appointment or conduct of disciplinary proceedings not alone a ground to reverse findings
* Affidavit formalities – Omission of annexures does not automatically vitiate affidavit
|
|
The High Court Labour Division has exclusive jurisdiction over tortious employer liability; the Resident Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellant's claim.
Labour jurisdiction – forum for workplace injury claims – Workers Compensation Act ss.30,79,80 – exclusive jurisdiction of High Court Labour Division under Labour Institutions Act s.51 – preservation of civil/tortious liability – administrative route: Director General → Minister → Labour Court – improper party: suing managing director vs corporate employer.
|
|
An independent tort claim arising from alleged criminal acts is not necessarily within the Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Employment law — Jurisdiction under s.94(1) Employment and Labour Relations Act (as amended) — Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction limited to matters arising from employment/interpretation of the Act and labour disputes under common law — independent torts (false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation) not automatically within Labour Court’s exclusive jurisdiction — District Registry competent.
|
|
Conviction quashed where material contradictions and broken chain of custody left prosecution case unproved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – unlawful possession of government trophies; Evidence – contradictions among eyewitnesses; Chain of custody – inconsistent packaging descriptions and missing inventory; Disposal of exhibits – limits on chemist's power and need for disposal report or inventory; Identification – reliability of independent witness.
|
|
The plaintiff's vague and non‑compliant plaint breached pleading rules and raised Labour Division jurisdictional issues.
Civil procedure – pleadings – Order VII Rule 1 – mandatory requirement to correctly name and describe parties; plaint ambiguity; Order VI Rule 16 – unnecessary or scandalous pleadings liable to prejudice fair trial; jurisdiction – Employment and Labour Relations Act s.94 – Labour Division’s exclusive jurisdiction over employment-related and certain tort claims.
|
|
Applicant's suit dismissed for non-appearance; tax-related claims fall within exclusive jurisdiction of tax appeals bodies.
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction of tax appeal bodies over tax assessment disputes; Labour law — distinction between supply-of-labour contract and employment relationship; Civil procedure — dismissal under Order IX rule 8 for plaintiff's non-appearance; Corporate procedure — requirement for company authorization to sue (preliminary objection).
|
|
CMA may hear complaints from disciplinary warnings, but a Registrar cannot extend filing time for an incompetent, time‑barred revision.
* Labour law – jurisdiction of CMA to entertain complaints arising from disciplinary sanctions (warnings, reprimands) under s.88(1)(b)(ii) and Code of Good Practice. * Civil procedure – competence of application; an incompetent application supported by defective affidavit must be struck out. * Court administration – limits of Registrar’s powers under Labour Court Rules (Rule 7(5)) and that extension of time under Rule 56(1) is a judicial power.
|
|
CMA may hear disputes from disciplinary warnings, but a registrar cannot grant time extensions—order was null and revision struck out.
Labour law – jurisdiction of CMA to entertain disputes from disciplinary sanctions (warnings/reprimands) – definition of complaint under s.88(1)(b)(ii); Procedural law – limits of Registrar’s powers under Labour Court Rules (Rule 7) – extension of time and withdrawal are judicial functions (Rule 56(1)) – nullity of Registrar’s order; Time‑bar – consequence of invalid extension; Incompetent application must be struck out.
|